The Curious Case
Taken from my topic about ranks on the LMBs. Part 1 So, when Pacman got Detective I immediately noticed that he had ranked up on September 19, 2014; exactly three years after he had joined. I didn't really think anything else about it until the other week, when looking at screenshots. I saw he got Cowboy on June 19, exactly three months before. He got Revolutionary Solider exactly three months before that, on March 19, 2014. I did more research and made a chart of the dates he ranked up. Excuse the month/day/year format. :Eye_roll: :Joking: *Rank 6: 12/10/12 *Rank 7: 12/12/12 *Rank 8: 12/15/12 *Rank 9: 12/22/12 *Rank 10: 12/24/12 *Rank 11: 12/28/12 *Rank 12: 12/31/12 *Rank 13: 1/7/13 *Rank 14: 1/19/13 *Rank 15: 3/19/13 *Rank 16: 6/19/13 *Rank 17: 7/16/13 *Rank 18: 9/19/13 *Rank 19: 3/19/14 *Rank 20: 6/19/14 *Rank 21: 9/19/14 So you instantly notice that, a month after the update, in December 2012, he starts to rank up at an extreme rate of speed. The only way this can be rationally explained is with likes. He already had enough posts from before the update. But one thing... time online. It just doesn't work. Two months after the update he reached rank 13, which has now been proven to require around 49,800 minutes. This would require him to be online for an average of roughly 14 hours a day every day after the update. This is obviously impossible (I mean seriously:Disappointed::Joking:). Three possibilites (at least in my eyes) are presented here. 1) The rank requirements have been changed since 2012, 2) there was a serious time online glitch after the update (which explains absurd numbers for diglett809, AwesomePythor, and thejoester300), or 3) Pacman somehow actually got 14 hours a day(yeah right). ...I'll revisit the first two points later on. So for 6 - 13 we just have Pacman ranking up insanely fast in a month period. Rank 14+ is where it gets disturbing. As I said, I only just noticed this, these facts have been out there for ages. :Joking: Part 2 Continue looking at the chart. From 6 - 13 he ranks up extremely quickly, while at rank 14+ things get extremely... coincidential. He ranks up on the 19th of each month (remember, he made his account on September 19, 2011) for EVER RANK except Musketeer, and that was just three days from the 19th. As far as I can tell, there is no logical explanation for this, except maybe Cowboy and Detective, which could actually require 33 and 36 months respectively. Considering the fact that Skul, and to a lesser extent Mishkaiel, got ranks 14 - 19 with far less account age than Pacman, this truly makes no sense. How likely is it that Pacman is going to satisfy the requires for each rank on the 19th of a month for a nearly two year period? Diglett has a similar weird coincidence in his ranking history, when he went from rank 17 to 20 on the 21st of September 2013 (he joined on the 21st of April 2009). Yeah kids, he went through two of the highest ranks in a day. :Joking: We'll come back to this later. I just found this out... Tanner also exhibited some "anniversary ranking" in 2013. He joined on January 15, 2011. He reached Musketeer on May 15. He reached Pirate on July 14(close enough:Joking:). This is probably was merely coincidence though. Still worthy of noticing. So we can probably also attribute Diglett's peculiar ranking on that date to coincidence as well, that was the only time he ranked up on an anniversary. But Pacman continues to stump logic. Nothing we know about the ranks indicates that he'd rank up like this. But he did. And I have no idea why. Now, as I was saying, Pacman is not the only person to rank up strangely. Probably the most famous example is Diglett going from Musketeer to Cowboy in a day. To give you some perspective on this, four other users are currently Cowboy or higher. It took Pacman 9 months to rank up as far as Diglett did in one day. It took AwesomePythor 3 months. It took me 6 months. It took Tanner 23 months. Part 3 So, carrying on. How Diglett ranked up on September 21, 2013, is definitely weirder than Pacman always ranking up on an anniversary, which could possibly just be coincidence. However, going from rank 17 - 20 in a day is no coincidence. :Joking: I can think of nothing that would be able to push someone through the ranks that fast. If it were likes given requirements, he would have to have given several hundred likes that day, which was impossible with the old likes limit. The gaps between any stat would be too big to leap in one day. It's impossible. Yet it happened. As Skul pointed out, there is no way Diglett could have gotten Cowboy less than a year after the update, as he'd have to have been clocking nearly 1000 minutes each day to reach the time online requirement of 317,000 minutes, and I seriously don't think he was on here for 17 hours each day, considering he was inactive for some time in early 2013. :Joking: So there are, as far as I can see, two things that might have happened here. 1) The rank requirements were modified on September 21, 2013 or 2) There was a glitch on September 21, 2013. Or maybe both. :Joking: I actually have proof that something weird DID happen with the ranks between September 9, 2013, and October 8, 2013. On September 9, I got Forestman. On October 8, I got Ninja. I always marvelled at the shortness of time I was on rank 11, as others were often long stuck on the rank. After the restAPI time online was revealed and we determined Forestman to require 27,500 minutes and Ninja 42,000, I marvelled even more. I would have had to be spending an average of EIGHT HOURS EVERY DAY from when I got Forestman to when I got Ninja to jump that 14,500 minute gap. I recall my activity then, and I could have only gotten 8 hours on a weekend. During the week I wasn't even on for 6. I also computed my average time online per day for some other ranks, using our current time online stats. 10: 190 12: 153 13: 245 14: 281 15: 328 16: 405 Nowhere did I ever average 6 hours. Part 4 Continuing discussing my own ranking in September 2013. Obviously, there was some sort of glitch that caused me to gain excessive time. However... was it really a glitch? Skul and I think the rank requirements may have been modified then, something edited that caused users to jump some ranks. I have evidence of rank requirement modifications in 2014, with four examples that I'll discuss later on. But, continuing with September 2013. From August 14, 2013, to September 22 (Hey, would you look at that. The day after Diglett ranked up three times), thejoester300 went from Roman Soldier to Jester. Ten ranks. One month. Everyone was initially baffled by this. However, in early 2014 I provided a solution, stating that "He ranked up on the likes given requirements." However, after my extensive research in the past year, I see that this was not the case. He had given more than enough for Jester (Warioman56 reached Jester with 389 likes given) when he reached Highland Battler on September 4. However, the one thing that's most disturbing about Joe is his time online statistic. In December 2014, he had 465,750 minutes. This would have required him to be online for an average of nearly TEN HOURS A DAY since the update. Joe's been inactive the majority of the time since the update. This is impossible. Obviously his time online statistic glitched or was manually increased sometime in 2013. Could this have been at the same time Diglett jumped ranks? When I logged an absurd number of minutes? Certainly something strange was going on in September 2013... but mysterious rankings earlier in the year (Pacman87 specifically), still happened. Pacman got Pirate on September 19, 2013, right in the middle of the "glitch period." Coincidence? Could the rank requirements simply have been edited, which messed up several user's stats, causing them to jump ranks? In my next post I will discuss four odd cases which lead me to believe that the rank requirements have been edited in the past. Part 5 Last year four things happened that defied all logic concerning the ranks. These incidents lead me to believe that the rank requirements have, indeed, been edited at several points in the past. The first incident occurred on February 14, 2014. Legogirl4949 went from Minotaur to no rank. She later regained her old rank and is now Viking. However, I could not figure out why this had happened. She had lost no posts nor likes. For doubters, here is the source. I have a screenshot too that shows her without a rank. :Eye_roll::Joking: community.LEGO.com/t5/COMMUNITY-CHAT/WELCOME-TO-BRICKBOOK/td-p/3732835/highlight/true/page/5971 (4th post) I noticed the second incident five days later. It probably occurred at the same time as the Lego4949 rank loss. Pandamonium2008 dropped from Minotaur (hmmm, both of these were Minotaurs) to no rank. He later regained his rank and is now Samurai Warrior. However, this isn't the last we'll hear about Pandamonium, I'll come back to this later. :Joking: So in February 2014 two users inexplicably lost their ranks. It can't be explained. However, I personally find the next two examples weirder. RANDOM NOTE: I have a screenshots of the boards under maintenance with a weird screen on February 24 and March 4, 2014 . :Joking: The next incident occurs on March 29, 2014. Izzybe5, then a Samurai Warrior, drops to Viking for several minutes before regaining her rank. community.LEGO.com/t5/COMMUNITY-CHAT/WELCOME-TO-BRICKBOOK/td-p/3732835/highlight/true/page/7799 (8th post) The next incident, occurring late that year on November 23, was basically the same thing. Keplers ranked down from Pirate to Musketeer, gaining his old rank several minutes later. Now why would this happen? I fail to see how it's a glitch. One does not simply lose a rank:Joking: Yeah, anyways. I believe that these incidents (also the ones in my previous post) were caused by staff editing the rank requirements for whatever reason. Perhaps compensating for a glitch, I'm not sure. I will discuss more anomalies next post. Part 6 In this section I will be discussing the two anomalies I have discovered. :Joking: In checking users' stats (yeah I do that a ton:Joking:) I discovered two people (there are probably more I haven't come across) who have achieved ranks with far fewer likes than everyone else. Through my careful observation I have determined rank 5 to require around 100 received likes, rank 6 200, rank 7 250, and rank 8 300. Ranger5379 has rank 5 with only 70 likes. Pandamonium2008 (told you he was coming back:Joking:) has rank 8 with only 200 likes. He has also given only 30. Everyone else has given at least 92 for rank 8. Now this is highly disturbing. :Joking: The thing I find weirdest is that Pandamonium had completely lost his rank in February 2014. Are these connected? Both users posted a good deal, especially before the update; Pandamonium made 7278 and around 200 after. Ranger made 1161 before and nearly 1000 after. Perhaps if a user excessively satisfies all requirements except likes they'll still rank up? I have noticed people gaining ranks with a wide range of likes received, especially for Viking. Users needing likes tend to rank up around 250 likes; however, some, particularly older users, rank up around 240. Is likes simply a variable requirement, or are these anomalies remnants of different rank requirements? Perhaps the requirements were modified and didn't effect these two. Remember, when the avatars were updated, it affected some and not others... :Joking: These two users are simply more inexplicable pieces of the rank puzzle. Unlike Pacman87, they cannot be explained by coincidence... and what sort of glitch would do this? Part 7 (Likes Received) Not especially related to much, but I figured I'd mention the rank requirement that few acknowledge. :Joking: You need to have received likes from a certain number of users in order to rank. Usually this req doesn't affect users, but occasionally it does. :Joking: I suspected it existed, but only got concrete proof in December 2014. In early December I noticed that Unekitte had enough likes and posts for rank 7, but hadn't ranked up. I just assumed that she needed more time online. However, a week later, she ranked up without logging in since the last time I had looked. I checked her stats, and she had received a like from someone who had never liked her before. Also in December, Mishkaiel provided evidence for my theory. He achieved Viking at its post requirement. He then began posting extremely rapidly in Finding Friendships, receiving likes from a relatively small group of users. When he posted outside that topic, he received likes from a wider variety of users, and gained ranks 8 and 9 quickly in early December. On December 21, he received likes from several users who had never before liked him, and he jumped to rank 11. In March of this year I received more confirmation of my suspicions. Felixthunter had enough likes, posts, and all other discernible stats for Knight, but was still Samurai Warrior. She hadn't logged in since December but nevertheless ranked up after receiving likes from two users who had never liked her before in March. Likes received from moderators also may factor into this requirement, as I found a few Roman Soldiers who had received the majority of their likes from mods, and only a few other users had given them likes. I suspected moderator likes might even be a requirement for the higher ranks until AwesomePythor and Tanner gained Cowboy with relatively few moderator likes. Just something interesting to consider. :Joking: Part 8 (Why did Nkg9 rank up so quickly?) Today I remembered something unusual from the summer of 2013. :Joking: Nkg9 got Knight on June 13, 2013 Highland Battler on June 20 Forestman on June 27 Ninja on July 24 Aztec on July 30 He gained none of these ranks on the post or likes requirements. Given the above sentence, why did he rank up so quickly? Time online doesn't fit with any of it, unless the reqs used to be lower or his minutes increased via glitch. Logins or something? I have no idea. This is just another mystery of the ranks. :Joking: Note that I got Knight on June 23, 2013 Highland Battler on July 27 Forestman on September 9 Ninja on October 8 Aztec on November 26 So yeah. :Eye_roll: :Joking: Just another mystery... 2012 So I was thinking, and we've established that Gladiator requires about 1000 minutes. When I logged onto the new MBs for the first time, people were Gladiator. It pretty much stands to reason that it'd be impossible to clock that many on the first day, unless the system recorded differently or the requirements were lower. Also, two months after the update, Pacman reached rank 13, which we've discovered requires nearly 50,000 minutes. This summer I've been online here more than I ever have before, and since July 1, I've only succeeded in gleaning 38,000 minutes. So after the update were there time online glitches, or were the requirements simply later changed because it was realized that people were ranking up way too quickly? The discovery of ranks really evens out after rank 14 - until we reach Diglett going from rank 17 to 20 in a day. Personally, I think the reqs used to be different, then were changed, then somehow the system glitched in September 2013 and they were changed again. Also, I think some sort of limiter might have been placed on Pacman so he could only rank up periodically. Category:Things